Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law,
There is no question whether or not, according to the laws of chance,
the odds are 50/50 that a flipped coin will land on one side or the
other. But what is significant to the cluster illusion is that the
apparent anomolies (clusters) within a series of flips exist
according to the laws of chance and that such apparent anomolies are
not deviations from chance, according to probability statistics. The
probability that such anamolies exist is the same as any other
combination as you have confirmed. For example, within two coin
flips there exists the same probability that two heads in a row shall
occur compared to any other series of two filps, a 25% chance
([1/2^2]*100%). This occurs because there are only four possible
combinations, HH, TT, HT, TH.
> You seem confused as to who has fallen down into that pit. The
> assertions made about coin flips is completely false. The odds that
> coin will land on one side or the other are even. The odds that 20
> coin flips in a row will produce ANY combination are about a million
> to one. Thus the odds of every toss having the same result are the
> same as if the coin were to land staggered every toss.
However, clustering occurs within a larger series of coin tosses. For
example, three coin flips can produce the following different
combinations, HHH, TTT, HTT, HHT, THH, TTH, HTH, THT. There is a 25%
chance that the cluster HH will occur (ignoring HHH) and a 50% chance
that either TT or HH will occur. As far as I can tell, for twenty
coin tosses there exists a 25% chance that an HHHH cluster will occur
and a 25% chance that a TTTT cluster will occur because both clusters
may occur in a variety of different combinations. However there are
only two such combinatons in which heads and tails alternate, or
stagger as you say, in more that a million different combinations.
< The author of
> the piece you linked to assumes that symmetrical results are less
> likely than asymmetrical results, which is demonstrably false based
> upon the math.
Now the point of this has more to do with experimental forms of
english qabalah in general than with the Star-Key specifically. One
cannot proove the validity of such a system by simply collecting
'positive' results (identities derived from Gematria) as such results
are inherent in any such system according to the laws of chance. It
is hardly significant that Timothy Daniel Moss has the same value as
Aiwass according to the Star-Key as similar results are bound to
occur within any system of e.q. if one looks for them (especially if
there exists a billion trillion possible combinations).
Love is the law, love under will,
Cameron (= 93 = tahuti = christos, by naeq)
> There is not a single aspect of my work which is derived from random
> events; the Star-Key is a deliberate creation on my part.